They are quite a big modifier towards it - being the third most populous country in the world, it is a lot harder to keep everyone up to date with taxes and sustain the huge machine that is the american public welfare/healthcare. I just can't see those things working on a country with a big population.

Sweden has a population of 9 million people. Denmark is even farther behind - 5 million. For comparison, the city of São Paulo alone has 11 million, NYC has around 8 million. Gets quite unsustainable at these numbers.

Oh freaking really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Maybe one aircraft carrier would do?
Maybe the F-22 is already adept enough at slaughter, you don't need a better one.
Spending nothing on the F-35 ALONE would free up 8 billion dollars.
You spend 610 billion dollars, China spends a quarter of that. Imagine what you could do with say, 450 billion dollars. A fuckload, that's what. An extra 1,300 dollars per capita, that could go towards things like healthcare. Or having a minimum wage that is livable.

I don't think over reliance on nuclear is bad. If it's properly done, nuclear energy is very safe. Nuclear is almost always better then the alternative.


The main problem for scotland, as I said, is the short term. About the oil, as I said, it's not very lucrative right now, and I used the current proven reserves to make the statement that scottish oil will soon be fully extracted.


Plus, the tories aren't stealing your oil, it's normal to share the ressources benefits of one region with your country (even though the region that extracts it should have a bigger income on it). If you get independent, that wouldn't be the case of course.


Now, problems for scotland in case of independence:
- Need to take over programs that are actually taken in charge by the "federal government", such as healthcare (where scotland pays LESS then it receives), education, safety,... That would be a problem that could be solved in a few years period, but you'll have overcosts in the beggining.
- Losing many jobs and companies that will move to England in case of independence, such as the scotish royal bank for example (and yea, they said they would leave in case of independence). The situation would however be stabilized in the medium term.
- Losing the pound, nope the UK wouldn't let you keep that ;). You'll have troubles on this, but it can be solved on the medium term as well, or on the short term if scotland joins the euro.
- Dropping out of the EU. That's probably the biggest problem, if scotland is independent it won't stay by default in the union. There's no status for that, and it would be probably voted on the european parliament with every country able to veto. Good luck on avoiding the UK, or even spain to veto your stay in the union. That's probably a thing that isn't really fixable.
- Cameron already said scotland isn't getting a second referendum. It really won't happen on the short term.


However, there's a light on the end of the tunnel. If the UK leaves the EU, the biggest problems to your independance are fixed. The EU would accept an independent scotland if the UK leaves the EU, and the tories will be forced to give you another referendum if the UK isn't in the EU anymore.


PS: I'm for Scotland's independence as a right of the people to decide if they wanna stay in the UK or not. Just stating why you'll have problems to get it.

However, there's a light on the end of the tunnel. If the UK leaves the EU, the biggest problems to your independence are fixed. The EU would accept an independent Scotland if the UK leaves the EU, and the Tories will be forced to give you another referendum if the UK isn't in the EU anymore.

+1. This is the single biggest reason why Cameron is pushing for the UK to remain in the EU. Cameron is worried about his legacy as prime minister. Period. He knows that if the UK leaves the EU, he'll have given the SNP and Scottish nationalists their best argument for a second referendum in less than 5 years. Based on the blowout the SNP gave to the Lib-Dems and Labour in the general election, I can guarantee that Nicola Sturgeon and Angus Robertson will be quite organized to win. What does this mean? A majority vote for the UK to leave the EU is also a majority vote to let Scotland declare independence. This fact alone will brand Cameron as the most infamous prime minister in several decades in British history. That's why Cameron is seething at Boris Johnson and is angry at his MPs for trying to court UKIP votes by supporting the No side.

Maybe we should decrease both socialist spendings and military spending since we have a gigantic debt. How about instead of scraping just one military program, we stop giving our soldiers ridiculously expensive shit and body armor and stop fighting foreign wars.

Cut subsidies, cut bureaucracy, continue R&D but reduce personnel, cut most social programs, cut Education Dept, HUD, etc. Not hard to get spending under revenue, but politicians lack the will.

@Major General Smedley Butler

Maybe we should decrease both socialist spendings and military spending since we have a gigantic debt.

Just decrease military spending and stop giving welfare to huge corporations and the US budget is equilibrated.

How about instead of scraping just one military program, we stop giving our soldiers ridiculously expensive shit and body armor

Dafuk, if you send people to war you better equip them so they don't fucking die. Even better, spend to threat their problems when they come back.

and stop fighting foreign wars

Only inteligent thing you said.


@GeneralPE

On the contrary, it's hard to cut spending. If it was so easy, republicans would have done it during Bush. Plus, social spending is one of the few thing paying taxes is worth for after safety and justice.

Edited 2/24/2016 00:16:07

Except we're not sending them to war , so they don't need that ridiculous crap. And cutting down on socialism for favored industries is covered in lowering socialist spendings.

The US is at war still. And I disagree on the idea that you shouldn't equip your soldiers well if you're at peace... Just cut the ammount of soldiers you have, keep the quality. These days it's better to have 100 thousand soldiers well trained and equiped then 1 million poor trained and equiped.

Just see the french military interventions in Africa. France sends 1 thousand soldiers and beat the crap out of tens of thousand terrorists.

And for social expenditures, of course you shouldn't give thing to corporations, it's like trowing money away. It doesn't give any benefits to the society in general. However, government spending in education and healthcare is a good thing.

The reason Republicans didn't cut spending is that higher spending helps the PPC. Lobbyists and special interests. Plus, entitled 18 year olds with no responsibility always bitching.

We don't need a good army. We have two weak neighbors and two big oceans. A good navy and air force is all we need. It'd just be a big money dump so generals can have new toys they'll never use.

@Jai
Exactly. If he picked a populist like Bernie Sanders he would probably peel off a lot of the Bernie supporters and would be a very strong ticket. I actually think he might be to the left of Clinton if anything.

@teamguns

https://youtu.be/ObvdSmPbdLg

Have this argument constructed better than mine. I don't feel the need to discuss when you don't notice that your own graph admits 4/5 of energy use is still fossil, a more reliable source.

I saw that channel - it's totally ridiculous and funny. It cherry picks truths and basically sound like the official German National Socialist Party website - polite but as often as not, just untruth.

Basically, they say that sun and wind power have a shabby cost-reward ratio - maybe in the short, but definitely not in the long - and we're not going to run out of those (or, when we do, which will be loads away from other destructive energies, we'll have much bigger problems).

Edited 2/24/2016 01:13:58

@genghis

I've watched 4/5 of PragerU videos. Most of them are just stupid righwing ideas... I only like 2 or 3 of them. This one is not ammoung them lol.

We can switch to nuclear. Reliability.

Renewable energies are reliable... Fossil energies are reliable until a cartel of producers decide you won't be getting any more of them.

#1973 oil crisis
#1979 oil crisis
#NorOilNorUraniumAreUnlimited

On the contrary, it's hard to cut spending. If it was so easy, republicans would have done it during Bush. Plus, social spending is one of the few thing paying taxes is worth for after safety and justice.

What a load of horse dung. Come on you know that's not accurate. Its not hard to cut spending, the only problem is that it requires a veto-proof majority in the House of Representatives, Senate, and the President's approval (only likely when he's from the same party as the majority party of Congress). Tell me again when we had that situation last? GOP hawks don't want to cut defense spending and progressive Democrats don't want to cut anything else, so everyone ends up getting whatever pork barrel spending they want. Read this report on Pork Barrel Spending in FY 2015 (http://cagw.org/reporting/pig-book), it'll make you puke what we waste millions of dollars on.

The debt is 19 trillion. Unfunded liabilities (almost exclusively due to welfare and entitlement spending) is about 127 trillion (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/17/you-think-the-deficit-is-bad-federal-unfunded-liabilities-exceed-127-trillion/#723df78b10d3). Let's say we cut Defense Spending by 75% from $598 billion to $149.5 billion (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/). The US budget deficit in 2015 was estimated to be $468 billion. What else are you going to cut to get rid of the deficit. Let's say you cut some programs other than defense (though I doubt you can name any that you would) and you get the budget to a surplus of $1 billion. At that rate it would take you 1270 years to pay back unfunded liabilities. Good luck with that economic mode.

Its time to cut the budget. Its time to cut everything that is not absolutely essential and constitutionally authorized. Its time to cut defense spending and welfare.

Exactly. If he picked a populist like Bernie Sanders he would probably peel off a lot of the Bernie supporters and would be a very strong ticket. I actually think he might be to the left of Clinton if anything.

Dude you have to listen to some CSPAN shows where they let people call in based on their party identification. I don't how many times I have heard some white person call and say: "I'm voting for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump". Donald Trump supporters are Bernie Sanders supporters and vice versa. Donald Trump changed his party affiliation 7 times!!! 7 times. He's either mentally incoherent or an extreme political opportunist. I don't understand how millions of people can be duped by an orange carrot who's a pathological liar. Also does anyone find it curious that he "officially" switched his party affiliation to Republican only in 2010-2011, right around the time when rumors were swirling that Hillary would take a stab at the Presidential nomination in 2016? I call conspiracy on this...no doubt Trump's a mole to derail the GOP for a decade.

Edited 2/24/2016 01:47:38

We can switch to nuclear. Reliability.

Why do something that's going to also run out in 100 years? If you keep on picking the short goals over and over again, over a long time, the long goals will smash the short goals.

Nevada Caucus results in 2 hrs. Trump wins obvs. Make America Great Again!